You appear to of falsely banned me, but will withold judgement till you explain why on earth I was banned. It got into your head to do so, I can't begin to understand why. It certainly wasn't the quality of my list, any historian would of said what I said, I have a very wide number of posts from around history sites to point to from degree holders of various ranks. He was a atheist systematically attacking Islam then Christianity, so it isn't his religious beliefs your protecting, but his bigotry. Likewise, you unwisely castigated James for pointing out he was a bigot. Prismatic is highly predictable.

Your response however appears to be a merging of the ACLU with the Aryan Nation. You only protect hate speech, but not the rejection of it. You seem to enjoy bending over backwards to break your own rules.

Prismatic has to submit to Peer Review. It doesn't occur to you at all whatsoever, but the more scientific portions of philosophy, due to our Cartesian heritage, actually put Peer Review first and foremost. And yes, contrary to whatever you and Magsj may think, a hostile confrontation and accusations of wackery and falsification, due to a lost of authority and clear bias, and overall weak methodology, is orthodox and central to HistoryCraft, if anything, may be the central pillar to the Peer Review process. It is practiced literally everywhere. It is how we know if someone wrote something legitimate, and to discourage false history writing, but letting the larger community know "hey, look at this guy, he us a incredible wackjob, his work and intentions ate untrustworthy, you use him as a positive influence on his work, you will be similarly derided for reasons X, Y, Z".

If you banned me, and threatened James merely for stating the reasons X, Y, Z..... Know your horribly in the wrong. That's not how the Philosophy of History, at least not since the medieval to early Renaissance era when the Inquisition existed, forcing it's own version of events on everyone else, stamping out responses to the contrary. Are we currently in a Carleas Inquisitional State? Then all the hate speech and hate history on this site is a product of your engineering. You've chosen it to be this way, not because you defend free speech, which you clearly don't, but prefer foul speech. What other way can your actions be taken than this? There is a website on the net called KTS, it's designed for guts with such a mindset, I recommend you turn control of this site, which you did not found, but merely took over, to someone more responsible and less biased, and go join your kindred spirit Satyr.

If your going to insist writing history, and this includes even me, you got to be open to peer review, negative statements exposing your bias, and he prepared to respond, showing how that isn't the case. Prismatic choose not to. He rather just hide and disregard anyone pointing out he is a bigoted baffoon, and push them away while posting more attacks on religions he lacks a understanding of, by delving into their supposed histories. He clearly doesn't have a understanding of modern standards, and you cleverly running interference in the dialectic keeps him from finding out and improving himself, in the unlikely event he so chooses.

Go back, review the post carefully, and search for our past interactions. Then go look up how bad historians are treated on history websites, you'll find I was actually rather restrained in my approach, and consistent. He is writing in the area of the philosophy of religion, as a atheists, he isn't religious. He isn't presenting his own religious ideas, but pure bigotry desguised as historic fact, implying everyone today is part ad parcel to it. That is both bad history writing and shitpoor reasoning. You've done something incredible foul Carleas, you have as far as I can see no justifiable excuse for your actions.

Cease and dissist, and take a history course or two. Or look up Al-Biruni, Al Kindi, Ibn Khaldun, Rumi, al Farabi, Averroes. Especially Al-Biruni and In Khaldun in this case, the first for starting the science of comparitive religion, which Prismatic does absolutely no justice to, declaring at crude swaps all muslims are evil because a bumpkin in the desert wrote something absurd in a Fatwa- a Fatwa isn't a enforceable law, merely a legal opinion, and every country has it's own assortment of crude fools, Prismatic is a perfect example of that. Ibn Khaldun practically invented Sociology and modern history writing. He is on my top five list of greatest writers ever, period. How often has Rumi been accused of evil brutality? Was he plotting to destroy the world with Shamz?

You can't write off the history of one billion people that easily as merely being "evil", it is about as crude and retarded of a insight as you can get. I've been no great lover of Islam, I'm not on the left denouncing any claim that Islam today is messed up or less than glorious us wrong. That's absurd, I've denounced the actions of many Muslims more than anyone on this site. I was a soldier in Iraq for crying out loud, I don't think they are sweet and innocent. But I don't think they are inherently evil either. They have been touched by Greek Philosophy as the Christians and Jews have been. Ethics and morality us not a unknown concept to them, and they take it to heart as we do. Their religion evolved out if the brutality of the desert, one that has yet to fully receed, it has a split personality, but that split isn't more absurd than Christianutt's alter ego if Social Nationalism and Communism. We've been the fools more bloody in the last 100 years. Islam has a lot to answer for, but we shouldn't kill it off intellectually merely at a glance, get into the habit of enforcing bigotry as you have apparently done in attacking James and I. James and I don't even get along that well, and still both see through this fool. Catholicism can survive just fine with or without Prismatic's Anti-Popery, but it doesn't help when you ban Catholics from responding to Anti-Cathokic threads. I build my argument on his wide spectrum accusations that all Muslims are evil, Catholics have learned to disregard such attacks and force our points by becoming the top intellectuals in the fields we enter, like Jews do. We serve our society well. The bulk of Islamic Intellectuals live in the middle east and don't speak English. Fools like Prismatic can run a disproportional amount of damage against the religion for that very reason, as there are fewer in a position to respond. This site doesn't attract very many religious thinkers period, mostly due to the blind, insipid hate you've cultivated here in selective punishment.

And I've in the past have stated, and shown by my lack if posting in the religious section, I don't respond much to religious questions because they are too fragile to crack, scaring away new members. On rare occasions of blantant abuse of history I have, but it is very rare. Pezer even once complained upset why I never post there. I'm reading Peter Abelard's "Ethica" right now, it certainly isn't from a lack of knowledge or fear of some heterodoxy or paganism evolving. I have a general respect for such efforts, however illogical or short lived they are. They tend to self implode. False historical narratives don't however, as they feed on raw emotions, especially hate, and encourage conspiracy theories, pogroms, militancy in opposition.

Do we really want to live in a era where we return back to literal pogroms in the street all because you've mustered a terrible defence of your actions in protecting prismatic in a area in which he is clearly in the wrong of? What kind of website would that make us? Something akin to Stormfront?

Until you give me justification for your actions, I stand by my statements. In no way do I change my stance, and nor should others bow to your lack of foresight. Back off on subjects your clearly lacking in understanding if, and let philosophy look after itself. I'm a product of several historic schools of history and philosophy, let me do the task I was meant to do, by the great minds that preferred me. We have a method, worked damb well for 600 years, we aren't about to change it all up just because Carleas of all people get a sudden notion that hate us good, and peer review and historical analysis is bad. It isn't your place. If you think it is your place, your in the wrong. Learn our methods before you make a further fool of yourself and make a greater ass of philosophy. You insult not me, but centuries worth of philosophers who have cone before us, and all the efforts they've made to encourage us to stronger and better reasoned thinking. I'm not asking, I'm pointing it out and demanding respect for them.

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

You were banned because you earned your second warning. You earned your second warning for this post, in which you don't respond to the OP, you attack their person instead, and immediately after I had intervened to ask another user not to get personal.

Now turd is a well, turd, but I will at least stand up for Free Speech in America.

Turd should not be banned for commenting that the original poster was bad at fact checking and his remark that the original poster was worse than the Salem Witch Trials was relevant to the post and even though it was a personal attack it was relevant to the thread in that he felt the original post was not factually planned or based on research.

The punishment for Turd should be 25 days of community "service" (*ahem* "service") and not exile.Thankyou your honor.Dectective Trixie out.

Grow up Carleas, quit hiding behind foul excuses. It is extremely rare that I do what Arc does, break up a post to each person, then build quote pyramids per line, I debate the entirety within and transports. That has always been my method, hence why I have long posts and not a nmilluon shirt ones.

Are you trying to tell me his posts ate not ideologically interconnected, based around the very definition of bigotry?

Look at "Chronology of Ancient Nations or Vestiges of the Past" by Eduard Sachau. It's a 19th century translation of one of the authors Prismatic would never dare touch, I got my copy from Iranian historian a while back, I recall he put it up on the net, he gives in the introduction what a bigot is. That is who Prismatic is. If I was in a court if law, and your crazy ass decided to prosecute me for libel on his behalf, I would merely submit his definition, have the case dismiss, and then forceably remove your capacity to practice law. It us a clear trespass against not merely me, what your doing here, but all historians and all philosophers who hold truth dear. I'm not unique not unorthodox is my use if rhetoric here, restrained if anything. I'm hardly the first in a debate to target larger ideological trends in my opponent that merely hide behind a op. He is a bigoted piece of shit, the threads are crafted for his exposition of mindless shit. I'm representing a wide swath of philosophy with a long tradition of rightfully rebuking Prismatic's filth, long before he was born, My goal isn't merely to rebuke but give stern warning to others he isn't acceptable, and offer a better way. It us a running dialogue not merely with a post, but post by post. I'm not going to format it to the op perfectly each time, because nobody does that (except arc). Your watching the presidential debates, do you see either hillary or trump stick to the questions, or do they step out and beyond hitting the larger issue?

Extremely few debates that philosophers engadge in follow a opening statement. Capitalism would collapse if we did, because board meetings would be dominated by the opening statements, nobody would be able to assert otherwise, and most of the stickbholders would be forced out of the room from cursing out of pure frustration from a idiot savant overruling everyone from speaking because it doesn't fit the opening statement.

Parliamentary Procedure never follows it's own prescribed rules of order. We force it in courts, and even then it doesn't stick, but it's become so obtruse we now have millions of felons imprisoned because they couldn't get a fair trial, all in the name of axiomatic fairness.

When you hit such obtuse walls, when the results systematically come back depraved and wrong, when you find yourself lying, kakingbbad excuses like you have here Carleas, is when you gotta acknowledge the system you've built up, however ligicalc is inhumane and wrong. You gotta sit back a bit and let human nature reassert it self, watch where people are the most insisting on shacking off the chains, and rebuild it to allow reasonable breathing room.

You made a massive, inexcusable no-no, goes against the spirit if your earlier statements of not liking neo-nazis posting, but you protect free speech. You've admitted in this thread your now responding positively to known and certain bigots, when they complain that others are protesting them, and are banning the people systemmatically refuting their positions.

In other words, your actively supporting bigotry, banning those who reject it. Yes you are, don't shake your head your not, this is exactly what you've admitted to doing, and my Han proves it.

Only way free speech works, and democracy wins, is if the police don't turn into the brownshirts putting down philosophical rebuttals. Given enough time, philosophers will reassert themselves over calls to violence and hate, pogroms and genocide.

Just because Prismatic complains, like he did to Magsj (and I held back in response to her request, prismatic kept getting worst and worst) and to you, doesn't mean you gotta go about banning and harrasding others. Point out to them there is such thing as a dialectic, learn to debate better. If he is losing face, learn to build a more resilient one, if he is being accused of providing false facts, show why they are right. If faced with a hostile circumstance, present the challenge of a peer review and let the record speak for itself.

It isn't your job to see to see to it notorious bigots can speak their foulness unmolested. It's merely your job to provide the debate platform for rebuttles to ideas. I've done my part, done it well. Your not doing your part well at all. You've missed the big point of running philosophy sites, your not here to protect egos or hate speech, but merely to provide a debate platform, and you systematically mutilitaing it in actions like these.

No more shaking your head at the monitor in dense defiance to reason and just change. No more hiding behind the collectivity of other moderators. Just for once, do the right thing, admit you fucked up, and take your hands off a situation and let philosophy reassert itself. We've been doing this for a few thousand years without you, we can handle ourselves, if we get it wrong, big whoop, we get it wrong, the patterns for rhetorical exchange eventually adjust itself to fix these short comings. If you feel something is off in a debate, don't moderate it, join in.

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via: